Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 172 - MADRAS HIGH COURTLevy of Sales Tax - agriculturist, producer of raw rubber could be treated as dealers or not - effect of Amendment brought to Section 2(r) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - inter-state sale of the raw rubber latex / rubber sheets - assessment under CST Act. Whether the activities done by the respondent would fall within the definition of sale in terms of the provisions of the General Sales Tax Act? - HELD THAT:- This issue was considered by this Court in the case of Kanyakumari District Planter's Association Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil-Rural and others [2001 (7) TMI 1273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] in the said decision it was held that the respondent carrying of business in selling his produce something more is necessary to be established than pointing out that he systematically raises the produce in his lands, converts it into a marketable commodity and then sells the commodity at a profit in the market. It was held that though there was an amendment to the definition of 'turnover' in Section 2(r) of the GST Act, there was no corresponding amendment to the Central Sales Act, 1956 - Hence, it was held that the notice calling upon the members of the Kanyakumari District Planters Association to get themselves registered as dealers under the CST Act was without authority and liable to be quashed. The raw rubber is sold from the estate by raising estate bills. Apart from the same bill, the transport is also covered by 'Form N1' issued by the Rubber Board and the Village Administrative Officer's certificate to evidence the transport of agricultural produce and in their estate the respondent have sold only their produce and have not engaged in supplying and selling of any other produce of similar nature or otherwise. Further the First Appellate Authority concluded that the sale of the produce of the respondent is the culmination of their agricultural activity. The questions raised for consideration has to be necessarily answered against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent - Petition dismissed.
|